Child Abuse Review Vol. 11: 191–194 (2002)DOI: 10.1002/car.746

GuestEditorialElaine FarmerSchool for Policy Studies,University of Bristol

CollectingInformation forAssessment andAction to ReduceHarm to Children

E ach article in this issue of the journal is concernedwith gathering information to assess potential risks to

children in order to take action to reduce those risks. Eachsuggests a very different approach to doing this. In thefirst, Jan Horwath provides an insight into some of thedifficulties in implementing the Framework for the Assessmentof Children in Need and their Families based on her workwith three social services departments. She argues that usingthe new Assessment Framework requires a conceptual andattitudinal shift if it is to be successful. Professionals need tobecome familiar with the underlying theoretical orientationof the framework and use research evidence combined withprofessional judgement. But the step that is clearly hardestto take is that of analysing the information collected andconsidering how each domain impacts on the others.

‘Considering howeach domainimpacts on theothers’

Jan Horwath highlights four areas of difficulty. The firstis that unequal attention may be given to the three domainsof the assessment triangle. Sometimes the focus is on thedevelopmental needs of the child, while parenting issues andthe social context are ignored. At other times, the emphasisis on parenting alone but not on its impact on the child,including when the worker overidentifies with the parent orhas not communicated directly with the child. She arguesthat such distortions are especially likely to occur in thecontext of abuse or neglect or when workers are under stress.Indeed, Stanley and Goddard (2002) in their recent bookhave shown how in some cases of child abuse the workereffectively acts as a hostage to the abusing parent and isunable to protect the child. I would add that it is commonfor workers to have a primary orientation to either the childor the parent in child protection work and that holdingboth in balance is a challenging task (Farmer and Owen,1995).

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

192 Guest Editorial

A second weakness in assessment is when the workerfocuses on completion of the forms alone and the processstops at the information-gathering stage. No analysis or plansfor intervention are then provided. She suggests that this isparticularly likely to occur with inexperienced professionalsand those poorly trained in using the Framework. A thirddifficulty is the author’s major concern that child protection isstill incident-driven (Department of Health, 1995) and that,

‘Child protection isstill incident-driven’ as a result, neglected children are not assessed early enough,

since they are subject to an accumulation of adversitiesrather than one compelling event. A final problem is thatHorwath, in recent training with 60 social workers, foundthat direct work with children during assessment was rarelyundertaken, so information about the child’s own experienceis generally lacking. One explanation was that social workerslack confidence and skills in communicating with children.This suggests that this should be a priority in the new socialwork training and on post qualifying child care courses.In addition, I would suggest that there is a need for anindependent evaluation of the new Framework, so that itsefficacy can be rigorously tested and areas where assessmentsoften fall short can be identified and appropriate trainingdeveloped.

After this consideration of the top-down introduction ofDepartment of Health assessment guidelines, there is apaper by Sarah Nelson and Norma Baldwin suggesting abottom-up approach to protecting children. They describe

‘A bottom-upapproach toprotecting children’ comprehensive neighbourhood mapping, in which detailed

local information is collected to identify specific areas of riskfor children and how these can be improved. The idea isthat local people contribute to this mapping exercise andthere is an explicit aim of increasing protection from sexualoffenders. The mapping includes identifying aspects of thephysical environment that increase risk, such as poorly lightedstreets or empty flats, places that are colonized by groups ofpeople such as drug dealers and places where sexual servicesare sold or where children regularly congregate. Finally,specific people such as sex offenders and organizationsthat provide support to young people at risk are identified.This community-based approach has some similarities to thework on child safety and accidents undertaken in Corkerhill,Glasgow, in the mid-1990s (Roberts et al., 1995).

Once such information has been collected by schoolchil-dren and adults in the community and by statutory agencies,it needs careful consideration to assess how identified riskscan be reduced and supports strengthened. The subsequentinitiatives need to be integrated into long-term plans. This

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 11: 191–194 (2002)

Guest Editorial 193

approach is based on the idea that children will only be pro-tected if professionals work with local people. Apart from the

‘If professionalswork with localpeople’

intrinsic interest of this approach, social workers might findthat when a particular concern is evident on their patch (forexample a concentration of drug-using parents or children),initiating community mapping of this concern in concert withother agencies and local people could lead to creative change.

The third article is Linda Cusick’s literature review of oneof the most intractable child protection issues—that of youthprostitution. This is a third example of how informationcan be drawn together and analysed in order to provideincreased clarity about how children can be better protected.The review is timely in view of the Department of Health’sguidance on dealing with children involved in prostitution,with its emphasis that children are to be regarded asvictims of abuse and that multiagency discussions are tobe held immediately when concerns are raised. The reviewshows that most adult prostitutes were under the age ofconsent when they first became involved. Indeed, one studyfound that the most common age of first involvement wasbetween 12 and 15, and interestingly that half of these youngpeople had had no sexual experience prior to prostitution.Experiences of homelessness, running away and being lookedafter are strongly correlated with young people’s entry intoprostitution. While in care, young people are often exposedto peers who introduce them to and advise them on thelocal prostitution scene, and the weak position of youngpeople leaving care makes their involvement more likely,

‘Weak position ofyoung peopleleaving care’

particularly as prostitution is often engaged in due to a severeshortage of money. The author emphasizes that prostitutionis underpinned by the sexual double standard, poverty and anunequal labour market. The review finishes with a discussionof interventions and services, with the important warning thatmany young people involved in prostitution avoid statutoryagencies because they fear being returned to violent homes.

The final paper in this issue is a Training Update byJenny Myers on a training pack on work with young refugeechildren. This includes information on how practitionersand teachers can sustain refugee children, how play and arttherapy can assist them to come to terms with their pastexperiences and how positive self-identity can be promoted.Clearly, this pack, catering for a particularly disadvantagedgroup of children, has the potential for a far wider application.

The approaches to the assessment of potential harm tochildren outlined in these articles all have something to offer,but only if professionals move on from information-gathering

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 11: 191–194 (2002)

194 Guest Editorial

to provide clear analyses of key points for intervention andthen translate these into protective action.

References

Department of Health. 1995. Child Protection: Messages from Research.HMSO: London.

Farmer E, Owen M. 1995. Child Protection Practice: Private Risks andPublic Remedies. HMSO: London.

Roberts H, Smith SJ, Bryce C. 1995. Children at Risk. Safety as a SocialValue. Open University Press: Milton Keynes.

Stanley J, Goddard C. 2002. In the Firing Line: Violence and Power inChild Protection Work. Wiley: Chichester.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Child Abuse Review Vol. 11: 191–194 (2002)